Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 901

control, N = 451

treatment, N = 451

p-value2

age

90

50.26 ± 13.07 (25 - 74)

50.23 ± 13.34 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 12.94 (28 - 73)

0.981

gender

90

0.480

f

65 (72%)

31 (69%)

34 (76%)

m

25 (28%)

14 (31%)

11 (24%)

occupation

90

0.790

day_training

2 (2.2%)

2 (4.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

10 (11%)

5 (11%)

5 (11%)

homemaker

6 (6.7%)

3 (6.7%)

3 (6.7%)

other

2 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.4%)

part_time

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (18%)

retired

23 (26%)

11 (24%)

12 (27%)

self_employ

4 (4.4%)

2 (4.4%)

2 (4.4%)

student

2 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.4%)

t_and_e

2 (2.2%)

1 (2.2%)

1 (2.2%)

unemploy

24 (27%)

14 (31%)

10 (22%)

marital

90

0.690

cohabitation

1 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.2%)

divore

10 (11%)

7 (16%)

3 (6.7%)

in_relationship

1 (1.1%)

1 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

married

22 (24%)

10 (22%)

12 (27%)

none

50 (56%)

24 (53%)

26 (58%)

seperation

3 (3.3%)

2 (4.4%)

1 (2.2%)

widow

3 (3.3%)

1 (2.2%)

2 (4.4%)

edu

90

0.662

bachelor

26 (29%)

9 (20%)

17 (38%)

diploma

19 (21%)

12 (27%)

7 (16%)

hd_ad

3 (3.3%)

2 (4.4%)

1 (2.2%)

postgraduate

7 (7.8%)

4 (8.9%)

3 (6.7%)

primary

5 (5.6%)

2 (4.4%)

3 (6.7%)

secondary_1_3

10 (11%)

6 (13%)

4 (8.9%)

secondary_4_5

18 (20%)

9 (20%)

9 (20%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.2%)

1 (2.2%)

1 (2.2%)

fam_income

90

0.922

10001_12000

4 (4.4%)

1 (2.2%)

3 (6.7%)

12001_14000

5 (5.6%)

2 (4.4%)

3 (6.7%)

14001_16000

5 (5.6%)

2 (4.4%)

3 (6.7%)

16001_18000

3 (3.3%)

1 (2.2%)

2 (4.4%)

18001_20000

4 (4.4%)

3 (6.7%)

1 (2.2%)

20001_above

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (18%)

2001_4000

14 (16%)

9 (20%)

5 (11%)

4001_6000

10 (11%)

4 (8.9%)

6 (13%)

6001_8000

9 (10%)

5 (11%)

4 (8.9%)

8001_10000

7 (7.8%)

3 (6.7%)

4 (8.9%)

below_2000

14 (16%)

8 (18%)

6 (13%)

medication

90

80 (89%)

41 (91%)

39 (87%)

0.502

onset_duration

90

15.12 ± 10.70 (0 - 56)

16.42 ± 11.84 (1 - 56)

13.82 ± 9.38 (0 - 35)

0.252

onset_age

90

35.14 ± 13.99 (14 - 64)

33.81 ± 12.80 (14 - 58)

36.47 ± 15.12 (15 - 64)

0.370

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 901

control, N = 451

treatment, N = 451

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

90

3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

3.11 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.723

recovery_stage_b

90

17.93 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.73 ± 2.80 (9 - 23)

18.13 ± 2.50 (13 - 23)

0.477

ras_confidence

90

29.97 ± 4.78 (19 - 43)

29.42 ± 4.43 (19 - 40)

30.51 ± 5.10 (20 - 43)

0.282

ras_willingness

90

12.17 ± 1.93 (7 - 15)

12.00 ± 1.88 (9 - 15)

12.33 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)

0.416

ras_goal

90

17.52 ± 2.87 (12 - 24)

17.33 ± 2.88 (12 - 24)

17.71 ± 2.89 (12 - 24)

0.536

ras_reliance

90

13.08 ± 2.75 (8 - 20)

12.91 ± 2.57 (8 - 18)

13.24 ± 2.94 (8 - 20)

0.569

ras_domination

90

9.84 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

10.29 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.40 ± 2.32 (3 - 14)

0.071

symptom

90

30.50 ± 9.67 (14 - 56)

31.93 ± 9.86 (14 - 55)

29.07 ± 9.38 (15 - 56)

0.161

slof_work

90

22.68 ± 4.84 (10 - 30)

22.49 ± 4.37 (13 - 30)

22.87 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)

0.713

slof_relationship

90

25.64 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

25.02 ± 5.88 (13 - 35)

26.27 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.318

satisfaction

90

20.23 ± 6.80 (5 - 32)

18.64 ± 6.42 (5 - 29)

21.82 ± 6.86 (5 - 32)

0.026

mhc_emotional

90

11.00 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.47 ± 3.58 (3 - 17)

11.53 ± 4.00 (4 - 18)

0.186

mhc_social

90

14.78 ± 5.28 (6 - 30)

14.84 ± 5.32 (7 - 30)

14.71 ± 5.31 (6 - 26)

0.906

mhc_psychological

90

21.79 ± 6.04 (6 - 36)

21.16 ± 5.68 (9 - 36)

22.42 ± 6.37 (6 - 36)

0.322

resilisnce

90

16.47 ± 4.51 (6 - 27)

16.00 ± 4.27 (6 - 24)

16.93 ± 4.74 (7 - 27)

0.329

social_provision

90

13.64 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.16 ± 2.38 (8 - 20)

14.13 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.101

els_value_living

90

17.10 ± 2.88 (5 - 25)

16.49 ± 2.40 (12 - 22)

17.71 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)

0.044

els_life_fulfill

90

12.53 ± 3.28 (4 - 20)

11.51 ± 3.01 (5 - 17)

13.56 ± 3.26 (4 - 20)

0.003

els

90

29.63 ± 5.58 (9 - 45)

28.00 ± 4.61 (18 - 36)

31.27 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)

0.005

social_connect

90

27.04 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

28.07 ± 8.19 (8 - 45)

26.02 ± 9.82 (8 - 48)

0.286

shs_agency

90

14.33 ± 4.84 (3 - 24)

13.44 ± 4.45 (3 - 21)

15.22 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)

0.082

shs_pathway

90

16.39 ± 3.91 (4 - 24)

15.80 ± 3.78 (8 - 24)

16.98 ± 3.99 (4 - 23)

0.154

shs

90

30.72 ± 8.31 (7 - 47)

29.24 ± 7.87 (13 - 45)

32.20 ± 8.55 (7 - 47)

0.092

esteem

90

12.68 ± 1.56 (10 - 18)

13.00 ± 1.61 (10 - 18)

12.36 ± 1.46 (10 - 16)

0.050

mlq_search

90

15.07 ± 3.19 (3 - 21)

14.91 ± 3.04 (6 - 21)

15.22 ± 3.37 (3 - 21)

0.647

mlq_presence

90

13.49 ± 4.10 (3 - 21)

13.29 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)

13.69 ± 4.51 (3 - 21)

0.646

mlq

90

28.56 ± 6.43 (6 - 42)

28.20 ± 5.74 (12 - 40)

28.91 ± 7.10 (6 - 42)

0.603

empower

90

19.28 ± 4.06 (6 - 28)

18.76 ± 3.61 (11 - 24)

19.80 ± 4.45 (6 - 28)

0.225

ismi_resistance

90

14.69 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.38 ± 2.16 (11 - 19)

15.00 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)

0.258

ismi_discrimation

90

11.37 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

12.24 ± 2.99 (5 - 19)

10.49 ± 3.05 (5 - 19)

0.007

sss_affective

90

10.04 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.49 ± 3.58 (3 - 18)

9.60 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

0.257

sss_behavior

90

9.68 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

10.29 ± 4.05 (3 - 18)

9.07 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

0.141

sss_cognitive

90

8.14 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

8.56 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

7.73 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

0.301

sss

90

27.87 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

29.33 ± 10.54 (9 - 54)

26.40 ± 10.38 (9 - 54)

0.187

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.11

0.174

2.77, 3.45

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.089

0.245

-0.570, 0.392

0.718

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.198

0.258

-0.307, 0.703

0.445

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.292

0.367

-0.428, 1.01

0.430

Pseudo R square

0.023

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.7

0.408

16.9, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.400

0.577

-0.730, 1.53

0.489

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.275

0.566

-1.38, 0.834

0.629

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.944

0.808

-0.639, 2.53

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.025

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.4

0.740

28.0, 30.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.09

1.047

-0.963, 3.14

0.301

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.429

0.781

-1.10, 1.96

0.585

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

1.115

-1.07, 3.30

0.324

Pseudo R square

0.032

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.0

0.297

11.4, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.333

0.420

-0.489, 1.16

0.429

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.840

0.310

-1.45, -0.232

0.009

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.946

0.443

0.077, 1.81

0.037

Pseudo R square

0.046

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.457

16.4, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.378

0.647

-0.890, 1.65

0.560

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.665

0.522

-1.69, 0.358

0.208

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.57

0.745

0.112, 3.03

0.039

Pseudo R square

0.036

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

12.9

0.417

12.1, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.333

0.589

-0.821, 1.49

0.573

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.225

0.422

-0.603, 1.05

0.597

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.10

0.603

-0.082, 2.28

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.040

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.3

0.341

9.62, 11.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.889

0.483

-1.83, 0.057

0.068

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.569

0.434

-1.42, 0.282

0.196

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.71

0.619

0.501, 2.93

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.038

symptom

(Intercept)

31.9

1.439

29.1, 34.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.87

2.035

-6.85, 1.12

0.162

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.222

1.128

-1.99, 2.43

0.845

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.82

1.612

-4.98, 1.33

0.263

Pseudo R square

0.035

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.729

21.1, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.378

1.031

-1.64, 2.40

0.715

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.414

0.649

-1.69, 0.858

0.527

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.161

0.927

-1.98, 1.66

0.863

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.878

23.3, 26.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.24

1.241

-1.19, 3.68

0.318

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.26

0.843

-2.91, 0.393

0.141

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.58

1.204

-0.781, 3.94

0.196

Pseudo R square

0.028

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.6

1.024

16.6, 20.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.18

1.449

0.339, 6.02

0.030

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.795

1.169

-1.50, 3.09

0.500

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.058

1.670

-3.21, 3.33

0.972

Pseudo R square

0.054

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.562

9.36, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.07

0.795

-0.492, 2.63

0.183

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.451

0.537

-0.602, 1.50

0.405

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.561

0.767

-2.06, 0.943

0.468

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.830

13.2, 16.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.133

1.174

-2.43, 2.17

0.910

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.762

0.923

-1.05, 2.57

0.412

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.469

1.317

-3.05, 2.11

0.723

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.2

0.950

19.3, 23.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.27

1.344

-1.37, 3.90

0.348

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.573

0.993

-1.37, 2.52

0.567

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.153

1.419

-2.93, 2.63

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.010

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.661

14.7, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.933

0.935

-0.900, 2.77

0.321

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.116

0.701

-1.26, 1.49

0.869

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

1.001

-0.852, 3.07

0.272

Pseudo R square

0.030

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.430

12.3, 14.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.978

0.608

-0.214, 2.17

0.111

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.826

0.508

-1.82, 0.170

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.989

0.726

-0.433, 2.41

0.178

Pseudo R square

0.059

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.5

0.440

15.6, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.22

0.622

0.004, 2.44

0.052

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.058

0.481

-1.00, 0.886

0.905

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.527

0.687

-0.820, 1.87

0.446

Pseudo R square

0.056

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.462

10.6, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.04

0.653

0.764, 3.32

0.002

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.847

0.453

-0.042, 1.73

0.067

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.456

0.647

-1.72, 0.813

0.484

Pseudo R square

0.094

els

(Intercept)

28.0

0.819

26.4, 29.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.27

1.158

0.998, 5.54

0.006

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.739

0.793

-0.815, 2.29

0.355

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.141

1.132

-2.08, 2.36

0.901

Pseudo R square

0.088

social_connect

(Intercept)

28.1

1.387

25.3, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.04

1.961

-5.89, 1.80

0.300

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.07

1.251

-1.38, 3.52

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.47

1.788

-5.97, 1.04

0.174

Pseudo R square

0.028

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.4

0.726

12.0, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.78

1.027

-0.235, 3.79

0.086

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.203

0.737

-1.24, 1.65

0.784

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.506

1.053

-1.56, 2.57

0.633

Pseudo R square

0.041

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.8

0.578

14.7, 16.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.18

0.818

-0.425, 2.78

0.153

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.249

0.581

-0.891, 1.39

0.671

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.285

0.830

-1.91, 1.34

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

1.233

26.8, 31.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.96

1.744

-0.462, 6.37

0.093

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.441

1.207

-1.93, 2.81

0.716

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.236

1.725

-3.14, 3.62

0.892

Pseudo R square

0.034

esteem

(Intercept)

13.0

0.213

12.6, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.644

0.301

-1.23, -0.055

0.034

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.097

0.319

-0.722, 0.528

0.763

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.483

0.455

-0.409, 1.37

0.295

Pseudo R square

0.036

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.486

14.0, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.311

0.687

-1.03, 1.66

0.651

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.212

0.571

-1.33, 0.906

0.711

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.173

0.815

-1.77, 1.42

0.833

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.615

12.1, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.400

0.869

-1.30, 2.10

0.646

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.067

0.684

-1.27, 1.41

0.922

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.016

0.977

-1.93, 1.90

0.987

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

0.985

26.3, 30.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.711

1.392

-2.02, 3.44

0.611

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.148

1.109

-2.32, 2.03

0.894

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.186

1.583

-3.29, 2.92

0.907

Pseudo R square

0.003

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.613

17.6, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.04

0.868

-0.656, 2.74

0.231

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.039

0.571

-1.16, 1.08

0.946

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.291

0.816

-1.89, 1.31

0.722

Pseudo R square

0.014

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.376

13.6, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.622

0.531

-0.419, 1.66

0.244

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.026

0.495

-0.997, 0.945

0.958

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.193

0.707

-1.19, 1.58

0.786

Pseudo R square

0.019

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.464

11.3, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.76

0.656

-3.04, -0.470

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.511

0.475

-1.44, 0.420

0.287

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.729

0.678

-0.600, 2.06

0.287

Pseudo R square

0.059

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.5

0.534

9.44, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.889

0.756

-2.37, 0.592

0.242

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.011

0.518

-1.03, 1.00

0.983

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.10

0.740

-2.55, 0.348

0.142

Pseudo R square

0.040

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

0.567

9.18, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.22

0.802

-2.79, 0.349

0.130

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.124

0.581

-1.26, 1.01

0.831

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.670

0.829

-2.30, 0.955

0.423

Pseudo R square

0.040

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.56

0.550

7.48, 9.63

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.822

0.778

-2.35, 0.703

0.293

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.934

0.501

-0.049, 1.92

0.068

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.78

0.716

-3.19, -0.378

0.016

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

1.528

26.3, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.93

2.162

-7.17, 1.30

0.178

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.817

1.352

-1.83, 3.47

0.548

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.53

1.931

-7.31, 0.257

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.047

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.77, 3.45], t(131) = 17.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.39], t(131) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.70], t(131) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.01], t(131) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.86])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.73 (95% CI [16.93, 18.53], t(131) = 43.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.53], t(131) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.83], t(131) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.53], t(131) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.97, 30.87], t(131) = 39.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.14], t(131) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.96], t(131) = 0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.07, 3.30], t(131) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [11.42, 12.58], t(131) = 40.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.16], t(131) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.45, -0.23], t(131) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.08, 1.81], t(131) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.44, 18.23], t(131) = 37.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.65], t(131) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.36], t(131) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [0.11, 3.03], t(131) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.04, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.91 (95% CI [12.09, 13.73], t(131) = 31.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.49], t(131) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.05], t(131) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.28], t(131) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.29 (95% CI [9.62, 10.96], t(131) = 30.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.06], t(131) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.28], t(131) = -1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.71, 95% CI [0.50, 2.93], t(131) = 2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.22, 1.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.93 (95% CI [29.11, 34.75], t(131) = 22.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-6.85, 1.12], t(131) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.43], t(131) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-4.98, 1.33], t(131) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.49 (95% CI [21.06, 23.92], t(131) = 30.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.40], t(131) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.86], t(131) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.66], t(131) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.02 (95% CI [23.30, 26.74], t(131) = 28.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.68], t(131) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.39], t(131) = -1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.94], t(131) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.64 (95% CI [16.64, 20.65], t(131) = 18.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.18, 95% CI [0.34, 6.02], t(131) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.05, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.09], t(131) = 0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.33], t(131) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 8.25e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.36, 11.57], t(131) = 18.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.63], t(131) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.50], t(131) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.94], t(131) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.22, 16.47], t(131) = 17.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.43, 2.17], t(131) = -0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.57], t(131) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.05, 2.11], t(131) = -0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.16 (95% CI [19.29, 23.02], t(131) = 22.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.37, 3.90], t(131) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.52], t(131) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.93, 2.63], t(131) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.00 (95% CI [14.70, 17.30], t(131) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.77], t(131) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.49], t(131) = 0.17, p = 0.869; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.85, 3.07], t(131) = 1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.31, 14.00], t(131) = 30.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.17], t(131) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.17], t(131) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.41], t(131) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.49 (95% CI [15.63, 17.35], t(131) = 37.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [3.66e-03, 2.44], t(131) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [1.21e-03, 0.80])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.89], t(131) = -0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.87], t(131) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.51 (95% CI [10.61, 12.42], t(131) = 24.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.04, 95% CI [0.76, 3.32], t(131) = 3.13, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.73], t(131) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.81], t(131) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.00 (95% CI [26.40, 29.60], t(131) = 34.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.27, 95% CI [1.00, 5.54], t(131) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.17, 0.97])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.29], t(131) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.36], t(131) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.07 (95% CI [25.35, 30.78], t(131) = 20.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.04, 95% CI [-5.89, 1.80], t(131) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.38, 3.52], t(131) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.47, 95% CI [-5.97, 1.04], t(131) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.44 (95% CI [12.02, 14.87], t(131) = 18.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.79], t(131) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.65], t(131) = 0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.56, 2.57], t(131) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.80 (95% CI [14.67, 16.93], t(131) = 27.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.78], t(131) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.39], t(131) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.34], t(131) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.24 (95% CI [26.83, 31.66], t(131) = 23.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.96, 95% CI [-0.46, 6.37], t(131) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.81], t(131) = 0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-3.14, 3.62], t(131) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.00 (95% CI [12.58, 13.42], t(131) = 61.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.05], t(131) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.53], t(131) = -0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.37], t(131) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.91 (95% CI [13.96, 15.86], t(131) = 30.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.66], t(131) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.91], t(131) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.77, 1.42], t(131) = -0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.29 (95% CI [12.08, 14.49], t(131) = 21.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.10], t(131) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.41], t(131) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.90], t(131) = -0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = -4.01e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.20 (95% CI [26.27, 30.13], t(131) = 28.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-2.02, 3.44], t(131) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.03], t(131) = -0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-3.29, 2.92], t(131) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.76 (95% CI [17.55, 19.96], t(131) = 30.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.74], t(131) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.08], t(131) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -9.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.31], t(131) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.38 (95% CI [13.64, 15.11], t(131) = 38.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.66], t(131) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.94], t(131) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.58], t(131) = 0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.24 (95% CI [11.34, 13.15], t(131) = 26.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.04, -0.47], t(131) = -2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.42], t(131) = -1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.06], t(131) = 1.07, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.44, 11.54], t(131) = 19.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.59], t(131) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.00], t(131) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -3.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.35], t(131) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.29 (95% CI [9.18, 11.40], t(131) = 18.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.35], t(131) = -1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.01], t(131) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.96], t(131) = -0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.56 (95% CI [7.48, 9.63], t(131) = 15.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.35, 0.70], t(131) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.92], t(131) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-3.19, -0.38], t(131) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.34, 32.33], t(131) = 19.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.93, 95% CI [-7.17, 1.30], t(131) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.83, 3.47], t(131) = 0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.53, 95% CI [-7.31, 0.26], t(131) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

432.129

440.889

-213.065

426.129

recovery_stage_a

random

6

434.012

451.532

-211.006

422.012

4.117

3

0.249

recovery_stage_b

null

3

661.425

670.185

-327.713

655.425

recovery_stage_b

random

6

664.090

681.610

-326.045

652.090

3.335

3

0.343

ras_confidence

null

3

806.782

815.542

-400.391

800.782

ras_confidence

random

6

806.760

824.280

-397.380

794.760

6.022

3

0.111

ras_willingness

null

3

558.871

567.630

-276.435

552.871

ras_willingness

random

6

555.552

573.072

-271.776

543.552

9.319

3

0.025

ras_goal

null

3

681.492

690.251

-337.746

675.492

ras_goal

random

6

681.131

698.651

-334.566

669.131

6.360

3

0.095

ras_reliance

null

3

650.631

659.391

-322.315

644.631

ras_reliance

random

6

645.848

663.368

-316.924

633.848

10.783

3

0.013

ras_domination

null

3

612.076

620.836

-303.038

606.076

ras_domination

random

6

609.279

626.798

-298.639

597.279

8.797

3

0.032

symptom

null

3

962.076

970.836

-478.038

956.076

symptom

random

6

963.203

980.723

-475.601

951.203

4.873

3

0.181

slof_work

null

3

783.405

792.165

-388.703

777.405

slof_work

random

6

788.095

805.614

-388.047

776.095

1.311

3

0.727

slof_relationship

null

3

843.898

852.658

-418.949

837.898

slof_relationship

random

6

845.515

863.035

-416.758

833.515

4.383

3

0.223

satisfaction

null

3

902.545

911.305

-448.273

896.545

satisfaction

random

6

902.174

919.693

-445.087

890.174

6.372

3

0.095

mhc_emotional

null

3

719.294

728.054

-356.647

713.294

mhc_emotional

random

6

723.103

740.623

-355.552

711.103

2.191

3

0.534

mhc_social

null

3

837.282

846.042

-415.641

831.282

mhc_social

random

6

842.419

859.939

-415.210

830.419

0.863

3

0.834

mhc_psychological

null

3

869.832

878.592

-431.916

863.832

mhc_psychological

random

6

874.395

891.915

-431.198

862.395

1.437

3

0.697

resilisnce

null

3

775.243

784.003

-384.622

769.243

resilisnce

random

6

776.288

793.808

-382.144

764.288

4.955

3

0.175

social_provision

null

3

668.710

677.470

-331.355

662.710

social_provision

random

6

667.018

684.538

-327.509

655.018

7.692

3

0.053

els_value_living

null

3

667.374

676.134

-330.687

661.374

els_value_living

random

6

667.024

684.544

-327.512

655.024

6.350

3

0.096

els_life_fulfill

null

3

678.531

687.290

-336.265

672.531

els_life_fulfill

random

6

671.405

688.925

-329.702

659.405

13.126

3

0.004

els

null

3

831.715

840.475

-412.857

825.715

els

random

6

827.099

844.619

-407.549

815.099

10.616

3

0.014

social_connect

null

3

963.510

972.270

-478.755

957.510

social_connect

random

6

965.461

982.980

-476.730

953.461

4.049

3

0.256

shs_agency

null

3

797.132

805.892

-395.566

791.132

shs_agency

random

6

798.326

815.846

-393.163

786.326

4.806

3

0.187

shs_pathway

null

3

731.204

739.964

-362.602

725.204

shs_pathway

random

6

735.031

752.551

-361.515

723.031

2.174

3

0.537

shs

null

3

938.034

946.794

-466.017

932.034

shs

random

6

940.328

957.848

-464.164

928.328

3.706

3

0.295

esteem

null

3

489.316

498.076

-241.658

483.316

esteem

random

6

490.263

507.783

-239.131

478.263

5.053

3

0.168

mlq_search

null

3

694.686

703.446

-344.343

688.686

mlq_search

random

6

699.918

717.438

-343.959

687.918

0.768

3

0.857

mlq_presence

null

3

754.433

763.193

-374.217

748.433

mlq_presence

random

6

760.181

777.701

-374.091

748.181

0.252

3

0.969

mlq

null

3

884.611

893.371

-439.306

878.611

mlq

random

6

890.243

907.763

-439.121

878.243

0.369

3

0.947

empower

null

3

740.383

749.143

-367.192

734.383

empower

random

6

744.689

762.209

-366.345

732.689

1.694

3

0.638

ismi_resistance

null

3

634.331

643.091

-314.165

628.331

ismi_resistance

random

6

638.232

655.752

-313.116

626.232

2.098

3

0.552

ismi_discrimation

null

3

677.607

686.367

-335.804

671.607

ismi_discrimation

random

6

676.180

693.700

-332.090

664.180

7.427

3

0.059

sss_affective

null

3

711.549

720.309

-352.774

705.549

sss_affective

random

6

710.398

727.917

-349.199

698.398

7.151

3

0.067

sss_behavior

null

3

730.441

739.201

-362.220

724.441

sss_behavior

random

6

731.200

748.720

-359.600

719.200

5.241

3

0.155

sss_cognitive

null

3

716.153

724.913

-355.077

710.153

sss_cognitive

random

6

713.081

730.601

-350.541

701.081

9.072

3

0.028

sss

null

3

992.075

1,000.835

-493.038

986.075

sss

random

6

990.378

1,007.898

-489.189

978.378

7.697

3

0.053

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

45

3.11 ± 1.16

45

3.02 ± 1.16

0.718

0.091

recovery_stage_a

2nd

24

3.31 ± 1.15

-0.203

23

3.51 ± 1.15

-0.502

0.546

-0.208

recovery_stage_b

1st

45

17.73 ± 2.73

45

18.13 ± 2.73

0.489

-0.189

recovery_stage_b

2nd

24

17.46 ± 2.65

0.130

23

18.80 ± 2.64

-0.316

0.084

-0.636

ras_confidence

1st

45

29.42 ± 4.97

45

30.51 ± 4.97

0.301

-0.387

ras_confidence

2nd

24

29.85 ± 4.41

-0.152

23

32.05 ± 4.39

-0.547

0.089

-0.782

ras_willingness

1st

45

12.00 ± 1.99

45

12.33 ± 1.99

0.429

-0.298

ras_willingness

2nd

24

11.16 ± 1.76

0.752

23

12.44 ± 1.75

-0.094

0.014

-1.145

ras_goal

1st

45

17.33 ± 3.07

45

17.71 ± 3.07

0.560

-0.200

ras_goal

2nd

24

16.67 ± 2.79

0.351

23

18.62 ± 2.78

-0.479

0.018

-1.030

ras_reliance

1st

45

12.91 ± 2.79

45

13.24 ± 2.79

0.573

-0.220

ras_reliance

2nd

24

13.14 ± 2.45

-0.148

23

14.57 ± 2.44

-0.874

0.047

-0.946

ras_domination

1st

45

10.29 ± 2.29

45

9.40 ± 2.29

0.068

0.557

ras_domination

2nd

24

9.72 ± 2.16

0.356

23

10.55 ± 2.15

-0.718

0.191

-0.517

symptom

1st

45

31.93 ± 9.65

45

29.07 ± 9.65

0.162

0.719

symptom

2nd

24

32.15 ± 7.96

-0.056

23

27.46 ± 7.87

0.402

0.044

1.176

slof_work

1st

45

22.49 ± 4.89

45

22.87 ± 4.89

0.715

-0.164

slof_work

2nd

24

22.08 ± 4.15

0.179

23

22.29 ± 4.11

0.249

0.857

-0.094

slof_relationship

1st

45

25.02 ± 5.89

45

26.27 ± 5.89

0.318

-0.413

slof_relationship

2nd

24

23.76 ± 5.10

0.418

23

26.59 ± 5.06

-0.106

0.059

-0.937

satisfaction

1st

45

18.64 ± 6.87

45

21.82 ± 6.87

0.030

-0.749

satisfaction

2nd

24

19.44 ± 6.25

-0.187

23

22.67 ± 6.22

-0.201

0.078

-0.762

mhc_emotional

1st

45

10.47 ± 3.77

45

11.53 ± 3.77

0.183

-0.556

mhc_emotional

2nd

24

10.92 ± 3.26

-0.235

23

11.42 ± 3.24

0.057

0.594

-0.264

mhc_social

1st

45

14.84 ± 5.57

45

14.71 ± 5.57

0.910

0.040

mhc_social

2nd

24

15.61 ± 5.03

-0.228

23

15.00 ± 5.00

-0.088

0.681

0.180

mhc_psychological

1st

45

21.16 ± 6.37

45

22.42 ± 6.37

0.348

-0.354

mhc_psychological

2nd

24

21.73 ± 5.65

-0.160

23

22.84 ± 5.61

-0.118

0.499

-0.312

resilisnce

1st

45

16.00 ± 4.44

45

16.93 ± 4.44

0.321

-0.369

resilisnce

2nd

24

16.12 ± 3.95

-0.046

23

18.16 ± 3.92

-0.485

0.078

-0.809

social_provision

1st

45

13.16 ± 2.88

45

14.13 ± 2.88

0.111

-0.528

social_provision

2nd

24

12.33 ± 2.65

0.446

23

14.30 ± 2.64

-0.088

0.012

-1.062

els_value_living

1st

45

16.49 ± 2.95

45

17.71 ± 2.95

0.052

-0.703

els_value_living

2nd

24

16.43 ± 2.65

0.033

23

18.18 ± 2.64

-0.270

0.025

-1.006

els_life_fulfill

1st

45

11.51 ± 3.10

45

13.56 ± 3.10

0.002

-1.260

els_life_fulfill

2nd

24

12.36 ± 2.70

-0.522

23

13.95 ± 2.68

-0.241

0.045

-0.979

els

1st

45

28.00 ± 5.49

45

31.27 ± 5.49

0.006

-1.152

els

2nd

24

28.74 ± 4.76

-0.261

23

32.15 ± 4.73

-0.310

0.015

-1.202

social_connect

1st

45

28.07 ± 9.30

45

26.02 ± 9.30

0.300

0.459

social_connect

2nd

24

29.14 ± 7.92

-0.240

23

24.63 ± 7.85

0.313

0.052

1.012

shs_agency

1st

45

13.44 ± 4.87

45

15.22 ± 4.87

0.086

-0.672

shs_agency

2nd

24

13.65 ± 4.28

-0.077

23

15.93 ± 4.25

-0.268

0.069

-0.863

shs_pathway

1st

45

15.80 ± 3.88

45

16.98 ± 3.88

0.153

-0.565

shs_pathway

2nd

24

16.05 ± 3.40

-0.119

23

16.94 ± 3.38

0.017

0.368

-0.428

shs

1st

45

29.24 ± 8.27

45

32.20 ± 8.27

0.093

-0.684

shs

2nd

24

29.69 ± 7.20

-0.102

23

32.88 ± 7.14

-0.157

0.130

-0.738

esteem

1st

45

13.00 ± 1.43

45

12.36 ± 1.43

0.034

0.532

esteem

2nd

24

12.90 ± 1.41

0.080

23

12.74 ± 1.41

-0.319

0.695

0.134

mlq_search

1st

45

14.91 ± 3.26

45

15.22 ± 3.26

0.651

-0.150

mlq_search

2nd

24

14.70 ± 2.99

0.102

23

14.84 ± 2.98

0.185

0.874

-0.067

mlq_presence

1st

45

13.29 ± 4.12

45

13.69 ± 4.12

0.646

-0.161

mlq_presence

2nd

24

13.36 ± 3.72

-0.027

23

13.74 ± 3.70

-0.020

0.724

-0.155

mlq

1st

45

28.20 ± 6.60

45

28.91 ± 6.60

0.611

-0.177

mlq

2nd

24

28.05 ± 5.99

0.037

23

28.58 ± 5.96

0.083

0.764

-0.131

empower

1st

45

18.76 ± 4.12

45

19.80 ± 4.12

0.231

-0.513

empower

2nd

24

18.72 ± 3.53

0.019

23

19.47 ± 3.50

0.162

0.464

-0.370

ismi_resistance

1st

45

14.38 ± 2.52

45

15.00 ± 2.52

0.244

-0.339

ismi_resistance

2nd

24

14.35 ± 2.40

0.014

23

15.17 ± 2.40

-0.091

0.246

-0.445

ismi_discrimation

1st

45

12.24 ± 3.11

45

10.49 ± 3.11

0.009

1.029

ismi_discrimation

2nd

24

11.73 ± 2.74

0.299

23

10.71 ± 2.72

-0.128

0.200

0.601

sss_affective

1st

45

10.49 ± 3.58

45

9.60 ± 3.58

0.242

0.479

sss_affective

2nd

24

10.48 ± 3.11

0.006

23

8.49 ± 3.09

0.601

0.029

1.074

sss_behavior

1st

45

10.29 ± 3.80

45

9.07 ± 3.80

0.130

0.586

sss_behavior

2nd

24

10.16 ± 3.35

0.060

23

8.27 ± 3.33

0.381

0.054

0.907

sss_cognitive

1st

45

8.56 ± 3.69

45

7.73 ± 3.69

0.293

0.460

sss_cognitive

2nd

24

9.49 ± 3.15

-0.523

23

6.89 ± 3.12

0.475

0.005

1.458

sss

1st

45

29.33 ± 10.25

45

26.40 ± 10.25

0.178

0.610

sss

2nd

24

30.15 ± 8.69

-0.170

23

23.69 ± 8.61

0.564

0.012

1.344

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(125.70) = -0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.40)

2st

t(132.09) = 0.61, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.87)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(120.45) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.54)

2st

t(131.90) = 1.74, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.87)

ras_confidence

1st

t(104.57) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.99 to 3.17)

2st

t(132.98) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.74)

ras_willingness

1st

t(104.24) = 0.79, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.17)

2st

t(132.96) = 2.49, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.29)

ras_goal

1st

t(108.06) = 0.58, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.66)

2st

t(132.86) = 2.40, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.56)

ras_reliance

1st

t(103.07) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.50)

2st

t(132.81) = 2.01, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.85)

ras_domination

1st

t(114.20) = -1.84, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.07)

2st

t(132.21) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.07)

symptom

1st

t(96.33) = -1.41, p = 0.162, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-6.90 to 1.17)

2st

t(127.31) = -2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-9.26 to -0.12)

slof_work

1st

t(99.11) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.42)

2st

t(130.96) = 0.18, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.17 to 2.60)

slof_relationship

1st

t(101.27) = 1.00, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.71)

2st

t(132.30) = 1.91, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.11 to 5.75)

satisfaction

1st

t(108.10) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.31 to 6.05)

2st

t(132.86) = 1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.37 to 6.84)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(101.09) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.64)

2st

t(132.22) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.38)

mhc_social

1st

t(106.82) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.46 to 2.19)

2st

t(132.96) = -0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.50 to 2.29)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(104.23) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.93)

2st

t(132.96) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.14 to 4.36)

resilisnce

1st

t(104.79) = 1.00, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.79)

2st

t(132.99) = 1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.23 to 4.32)

social_provision

1st

t(109.90) = 1.61, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.18)

2st

t(132.68) = 2.54, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -1.06, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.49)

els_value_living

1st

t(106.14) = 1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.45)

2st

t(132.99) = 2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.27)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(101.96) = 3.13, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.75 to 3.34)

2st

t(132.55) = 2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.14)

els

1st

t(101.52) = 2.82, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.97 to 5.56)

2st

t(132.40) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -1.20, 95% CI (0.67 to 6.15)

social_connect

1st

t(99.47) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.94 to 1.85)

2st

t(131.26) = -1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-9.06 to 0.04)

shs_agency

1st

t(103.14) = 1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.81)

2st

t(132.82) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.18 to 4.75)

shs_pathway

1st

t(102.77) = 1.44, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.80)

2st

t(132.76) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.85)

shs

1st

t(101.88) = 1.69, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.50 to 6.41)

2st

t(132.52) = 1.53, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.95 to 7.33)

esteem

1st

t(126.48) = -2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.24 to -0.05)

2st

t(132.15) = -0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st

t(109.59) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.67)

2st

t(132.71) = 0.16, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.86)

mlq_presence

1st

t(106.92) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.12)

2st

t(132.95) = 0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.53)

mlq

1st

t(107.45) = 0.51, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.47)

2st

t(132.91) = 0.30, p = 0.764, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.97)

empower

1st

t(100.32) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.77)

2st

t(131.83) = 0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.78)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(116.65) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.67)

2st

t(132.02) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.20)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(103.45) = -2.68, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.06 to -0.45)

2st

t(132.87) = -1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.55)

sss_affective

1st

t(101.57) = -1.18, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.61)

2st

t(132.41) = -2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-3.78 to -0.20)

sss_behavior

1st

t(103.45) = -1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.37)

2st

t(132.87) = -1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-3.82 to 0.04)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(99.72) = -1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.37 to 0.72)

2st

t(131.44) = -2.84, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.46, 95% CI (-4.42 to -0.79)

sss

1st

t(98.94) = -1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-7.22 to 1.36)

2st

t(130.81) = -2.56, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-11.45 to -1.47)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(67.08) = 1.86, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.02)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(62.94) = 1.15, p = 0.507, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.83)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(53.39) = 1.92, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.06 to 3.14)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(53.21) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.74)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(55.29) = 1.70, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.98)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(52.59) = 3.06, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(58.85) = 2.58, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.04)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(49.12) = -1.39, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.92 to 0.72)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(50.53) = -0.87, p = 0.782, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.76)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(51.65) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.05)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(55.31) = 0.71, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.25)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(51.55) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.99)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(54.60) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.19)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(53.21) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.46)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(53.50) = 1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.67)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(56.32) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.21)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(54.23) = 0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.46)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(52.00) = 0.84, p = 0.808, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.32)

els

1st vs 2st

t(51.78) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.51)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(50.72) = -1.09, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.18)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(52.62) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.22)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(52.43) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(51.97) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.16)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(67.80) = 1.18, p = 0.483, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.04)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(56.15) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(54.66) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(54.95) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.61 to 1.94)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(51.16) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.84)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(60.38) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.18)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(52.79) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.19)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(51.80) = -2.10, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.18 to -0.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(52.79) = -1.34, p = 0.375, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.40)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(50.85) = -1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.18)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(50.45) = -1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.49 to 0.07)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(65.92) = 0.76, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.72)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(62.01) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.86)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(52.97) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.00)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(52.81) = -2.70, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.22)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(54.77) = -1.27, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.39)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(52.22) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.08)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(58.14) = -1.30, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.31)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(48.93) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.05 to 2.49)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(50.27) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.89)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(51.32) = -1.49, p = 0.285, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.96 to 0.44)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(54.79) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.15)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(51.24) = 0.84, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.53)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(54.12) = 0.82, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.62)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(52.80) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.57)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(53.08) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.53)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(55.75) = -1.62, p = 0.223, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(53.78) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.91)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(51.66) = 1.86, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.76)

els

1st vs 2st

t(51.45) = 0.93, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.34)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(50.44) = 0.85, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.59)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(52.25) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.69)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(52.07) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.42)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(51.63) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(66.59) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.54)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(55.59) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.94)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(54.18) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(54.45) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.09)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(50.86) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.11)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(59.59) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.97)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(52.41) = -1.07, p = 0.578, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.45)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(51.47) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.03)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(52.41) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(50.56) = 1.86, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.94)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(50.19) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.54)

Plot

Clinical significance